America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

so when your job morphs into something that breaks the very fabric of your sincerely held religious beliefs you should either change who you are or be fired

reading posts such as yours makes me ever so thankful for the constitution

i actually think you should not change who you are, but you do need to follow the law, and if your beliefs are that strong on any given subject you should find an employer who is more in line with your beliefs. You can't just make up or follow your own laws because you disagree with the real ones.

Typically you do what your employer tells you to do or you find another employer. The constitution does not say anything about you having the right to go contrary to what your employer demands and being guaranteed a job as much as the commie libs would like it too.

you can't pick and chose which laws to follow and expect no repercussions. Maybe a mooslum thinks no Jews should be allowed to marry or mixed race etc. it may be a deeply held belief but it's not their choice. And if their job is to issue permits according to law and they refuse to do so then they can not or will not do their job. Find something else for them or can them. It's not an employment program it's a job.

The fact that you may disagree with gay marriage doesn't change any of that.

I suspect most in here are pro employer when it suits them.

I think it takes a certain authority or certification and not everyone can do so..... And she knows that.

If I'm Irish American and work at a Lockheed Martin munitions plant making bombs can I quit making them but demand to keep my job and pay if the bombs are legally being sold to England and England starts dropping them on Ireland?

I can make whatever statement I want, protest as much as I want etc. it's a free country. I am not entitled to that job as much as you libs want to think I am.

Government employees are prostitutes. They must do what the law says like it or not. Or go somewhere else.

sounds like she better start watching her back for one of them GHME peoples...

I'm puzzled as to how you read anything in my statement that is constitutionally threatening.

Same-sex marriage has been ruled constitutional. Her duty as a member of government is to meet the requirements of her position. Sheis refusing to do so based on her personal moral compass. While her rreligious freedom is protected, she is now, as an agent of the state, unconstitutionally enforcing her moral code on the public.

Job requirements frequently change. You either adapt, move on voluntarily or get moved on involuntarily. There are several instances that come to mind of situations where I would leave a job because the requirements changed. I suspect you can as well.

when your right to religious beliefs, and I support your right to have whatever beliefs they are, inhibit my or any other American's protected rights, you have gone beyond Constitutional protection. Period.

The actions of the gay couple do not stop the clerk's rights to her religious beliefs, she can believe in the stupidest stuff ever dreamed of, but she has no rights to take any actions that disallow theirs, mine, or even yours.

the old and still true maxim, your rights end where mine begin, is the simplest way to say this whole argument is moot.

I think she should be forced to marry a gay.

So if a Hindi decided to stop approving cattle slaughterhouses for the FDA, because they personally are opposed to eating their sacred cows, you'd be ok with that.

They simply stop signing off on any new slaughterhouses, despite their job being to review and approve slaughterhouses (caveat, I don't know if this actually exists as a job.)... no new slaughterhouses get approved in their region because they don't think you should eat beef.

Why? I never said there was another person in that role. This is my hypothetical. You get no burgers.

The constitution makes no mention of delicious beef either.

You get zero steak, it doesn't matter what color you change your facebook photo to. No beef for you.

1st amendment has absolutely nothing to do with it.

This is ridiculous. She has a job to do. If she refuses to do her job fire her. The only religious protection she has is the government cannot make a religion or interfere with the practice of religion. No one is forcing her church to marry gay people.

I live in Kentucky and she wants the state to pay all of her legal fees to fight the courts on her behalf. She should be fired for not doing her job.

so you think that the government overreach that changed an elected officials job requirements mid term (aka imposing the beliefs of the state sponsored religion on her) should result in her quitting or going to jail? those are the only options? there literally isnt any other option?

courts arent made up on infallible, supreme beings. they are dirty human beings just like you and me. for them to rule that obamacare is constitutional is example enough that they are involved in pure political activism.

i will wait to see how this plays out.

At this point, the Supreme Court refused her appeal, other than a law change, there isn't much to play out.

IMO, she would be smart to have an employee issue the license thus preserving her religious beliefs, but I doubt that would satisfy either side in this argument. Again, this has the government accommodating religious beliefs, a snake that will come back to bite us in the collective azz when used by subversives and cultists that call themselves religions.

Son: Why can't my school sing a song that mentions Jesus Christ?
Father: Because it might offend some people who are not Christian.
Result: We won't forcibly offend anyone.

Son: Why won't that woman give a marriage license to that gay couple?
Father: Because it offends her religious beliefs.
Result: we will forcibly offend some.


Now, don't get me wrong. This lady needs a dose of reality. She's 100% wrong to shirk her responsibilities.
But the liberal media reaction shows that it's OK to offend, as long as the person is Christian.

I think she should give the license or be fired.
But I also think it's OK to sing a beautiful song that mentions Christ.

People need to get over themselves. There is no law stating that thou shalt not be offended.

Buncha whining pukes.

Incorrect phrasing of the situation. You're pretending the entire thing is about offense.
We don't have religious songs (when sung in a religiously observant manner) at government funded schools because our government isn't supposed to sponsor a religion. It isn't to avoid offending someone. The entire county could be 100% christian and it would be wrong to have religious songs.

That woman won't give a marriage license to a gay couple because she is using her position to impose her religious beliefs on others. Her religious beliefs aren't being offended, as she isn't being forced to gay marry. The marriage license is a legal document not a religious document, she isn't signing that the gays can be married in the eyes of her god, just the eyes of the USA.

Issuing the license is tacit approval of what it represents.

No it isn't, look up the definition of "tacit" if what you are saying was reality, the Nuremberg trials were unjust, many of those convicted were also following the law as well as orders.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tacit

Your argument doesn't apply.

Ah, the old, "partially pregnant" argument, too bad, it does not apply either. Victor you such a narrow focus, it's amazing.

She's being assailed by the court that ordered her to issue. If she doesn't resign by the hearing, she'll be found in contempt and put in jail where she belongs.

Yes, I can see how she could perceive letting others do something she believe is wrong as tacit approval. She is the boss, and therefore responsible for the actions or inaction of her subordinates. You cannot, you are blinded by your narrow focus on the topic of gay marriage. You just cannot accept any differance of opinion over this issue.

To wit, I already said she is at the end of her Did you read all most posts on this topic or just look for something over which to (over)react? Do you even read posts? Have you looked up the definition of tacit?

Issue, quit or jail. It's a free country and she has options.

I noted that you said it was time for her to do what she was told or quit. I was disagreeing with you on whether this consisted of "tacit approval".

Actually. Nevermind. I think I understand the argument you were making. I think my arguments were incorrect in their application here. I was not arguing the right point.

You're right. If she has a moral objection to the marriage which is so strong, she should quit.